4 ms·
They're trying to establish a precedent that would limit all monopolistic behaviour, including theirs. Obviously their motivations are to make it easier for the
by bananaface 6y ago
They're trying to establish a precedent that would limit all monopolistic behaviour, including theirs. Obviously their motivations are to make it easier for them to compete, but it won't make it easier for them to become a monopoly.
- pjmlp 6y ago20% global market share isn't a monopoly.
- bananaface 6y agoDoesn't matter, the behaviour is still monopolistic, but even if we cede that point it's absolutely a duopoly. Fortnite is also banned on Google play, they've lost access to over 90% of the mobile market. The Sherman Act isn't about being a monopoly, it's about exploiting an unfair degree of leverage. But either way that's not my point. Epic establishing a precedent that restricts the degree to which companies can dominate a supply line and then use that position to skim isn't going to make it easier for Epic to dominate you, the consumer. That's not their objective. That is Apple's objective.
- pjmlp 6y agoYour point is meaningless in face of the law, and that is what all anti-Apple champions will get with this lawsuit.
- bananaface 6y agoThey aren't suing Apple for being a monopoly, they're suing Apple for violating the Sherman Act. https://twitter.com/EskilSteenberg/status/1297520275790139394 https://twitter.com/EskilSteenberg/status/129752027579013939...
- parasubvert 6y agoWhich they clearly haven’t violated, by any historical or legal measure. But we will see. And also, it’s up to the DOJ to litigate this, not competitors. They don’t have the standing.
- jsmith45 6y agoThey absolutely do have standing. 15 U.S.C. §15 allows for injured parties of anti-trust violation to sue for treble damages. This is separate to and beyond any criminal charges the DOJ can bring. If courts determine that Apples behavior violates anti-trust laws, it is unlikely that they would find that Epic was not an injured party.
- c048 6y agoHow many stores are allowed on Apple's ecosystem?
- pjmlp 6y agoDon't like Apple, buy Android, Jolla, Purism, KaiOS, whatever. And in the process get a law book.
- wayneftw 6y ago> And in the process get a law book. You're the one who thinks that you need a world-wide monopoly for it to matter to courts in the US. > Don't like Apple, buy Android, Jolla, Purism, KaiOS, whatever. That's advice for a user, not a developer. As a developer, I'm forced to go where my customers are and in the US 50% of the users have an iPhone. If only 10% of the users in the US used an iPhone, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y agoIf your customers made a choice to choose a platform with a highly-controlled walled garden as the only means of installing software then you should respect that and either adhere to the terms of said garden or not enter that market. You're thinking like a company that cold calls people on the do-not-call registry or something.
- bananaface 6y agoThis assumes people buying Apple devices did it because they want a walled garden. I don't think that's true, I think it's the opposite. Most users dislike it. Obtuse example: I think the vast majority of Fortnite players would have (much) preferred to pay Epic's cheaper rate.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y agoAt least according to many iPhone owners in this thread, that is precisely why they bought an iPhone. It's also one of the many reasons that I did not.
- cat199 6y agogood point - it's 1/2 of a duopoly, with google being the other part.
- pier25 6y agoA US judge is not concerned about global market share.
- delfinom 6y agoMonopoly laws are country based not global. Global market share means jackshit.